United States v. Hanchett

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 31, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.TABITHA A. HANCHETT, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC
F. MELGREN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In
2016, Defendant Tabitha A. Hanchett pleaded guilty to one
count of using a communication facility to facilitate a drug
trafficking crime, and received a prison sentence of 48
months-the statutory maximum-to be followed by 12 months of
supervised release. Defendant seeks a reduction in her term
of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Doc.
56). She asserts that under Hughes v. United States,
[1] her
original base offense level should be reduced by two points
and that the recommended sentencing guideline range be
adjusted accordingly. For the reasons explained below,
Defendant's motion is denied.

I.
Factual and Procedural Background

On May
24, 2016, a grand jury issued an indictment charging
Defendant with one count of possession of methamphetamine
with the intent to distribute. On September 22, 2016, a
Superseding Information charged Defendant with one count of
using a communication facility to facilitate a drug
trafficking crime. On the same day as the Superseding
Information, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count
of using a communication facility to facilitate a drug
trafficking crime.

The
U.S. Probation Office prepared an Amended Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”) and filed it with
this Court on November 18, 2016. The PSR utilized the 2016
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) to
calculate a total offense level of 27, a criminal history
category of III, and a recommended sentencing guideline range
of 87 to 108 months. However, the statutory maximum term of
imprisonment for the crime of conviction was four years, thus
making the guideline term of imprisonment 48 months. On
December 14, 2016, the Court sentenced Defendant to a term of
imprisonment of 48 months, to be followed by 12 months of
supervised release.

Defendant
filed the current motion to reduce her sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) on July 20, 2018. She argues that
she is entitled to a reduction in her sentence based on the
U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Hughes v.
United States.

II.
Discussion

Under
the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (the “Act”),
the Sentencing Commission must “review and revise the
Guidelines from time to time.”[2] “When the Commission
amends the Guidelines in a way that reduces the Guidelines
range for ‘a particular offense or category of
offenses,' the Commission must ‘specify in what
circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners
serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be
reduced.' ”[3] Accordingly, the Commission must
“decide whether amendments to the Guidelines should
have retroactive effect.”[4]

After
the Commission has determined that an amendment should have
retroactive effect, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) authorizes
district courts to “reduce the sentences of prisoners
who were sentenced based on a Guidelines range that would
have been lower had the amendment been in place when they
were sentenced.”[5] It provides that the Court may modify a
term of imprisonment:

in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term
of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion,
the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after
considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.[6]

Defendant
mistakenly interprets Hughes to support her claim
for relief. In Hughes, the district court sentenced
the defendant to 180 months' imprisonment in early 2014
based on a Type-C plea agreement, and “[l]ess than two
months later, the Sentencing Commission adopted, and made
retroactive, an amendment that had the effect of reducing
[the defendant's] sentencing range” from 188 to 235
months to 151 to 188 months.[7] The defendant sought a reduction
of his sentence under § 3582(c)(2) based on this
retroactive amendment to the Guidelines, which reduced the
base offense level for most drug offenses by two
levels.[8] The U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether
§ 3582(c) may provide relief to a defendant whose
sentence is imposed pursuant to a Type-C agreement, and
concluded that the defendant's Guidelines range was a
basis for his sentence, and thus he was eligible for a
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2).[9]

To
qualify for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2),
Defendant must have been sentenced based on a sentencing
range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing
Commission.[10] Here, Defendant cites no revision by the
Sentencing Commission that would have resulted in a lower
applicable sentencing range; nor has the Court located any
such revision. Indeed, the U.S. Sentencing Commission
Guidelines Manual in effect at the time of Defendant's
sentencing-the 2016 Guidelines Manual-remains in
effect today. The Court applied the 2016 Guidelines at
Defendant's sentencing and the revision discussed in
Hughes occurred in 2014, well before Defendant's
sentencing. Accordingly, since Defendant was not
“sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a
sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), ”
Defendant does not qualify for relief under §
3582(c)(2).

Further,
even if the Court reduced Defendant's total offense level
by two levels, the recommended sentencing guideline range
would have been 70 to 87 months, instead of 87 to 108 months,
still well above the 48-month statutory maximum that
Defendant received. Although the Court lacks the authority to
grant the requested relief as explained above, [11] even if
Defendant's total offense level should have been reduced
by two levels, the Court would not, considering any
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, exercise its
discretion under § 3582(c)(2) to reduce Defendant's
sentence below the 48-month statutory maximum she
received.[12]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for
Modification of Term of Imprisonment Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.